|
Thanatosian posted:Reducing car use for its own sake is good. Cars are horribly inefficient in every sense: use of fuel, greenhouse gas, and required infrastructure. I'm not saying we need to eliminate cars entirely, but a lot of people seem to be operating with the premise that cars are not inherently bad, which just isn't true. * although not for carrying cargo or longer-distance travel Cicero fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Oct 17, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Mrit posted:Born in North Seattle, lived here ever since. So, why do you look back fondly on the abandoned warehouses of early nineties south lake union? An entire city changed by money, that seems like the weirdest neighborhood to get nostalgic over. There's way more housing there now, a grocery store, much more park space, lots of jobs in walking distance. It's not a bohemian paradise but it never was, at least not since the fifties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Reducing car use for its own sake is good. Cars are horribly inefficient in every sense: use of fuel, greenhouse gas, and required infrastructure. I'm not saying we need to eliminate cars entirely, but a lot of people seem to be operating with the premise that cars are not inherently bad, which just isn't true. * Like: "Lockheed Martin announced Wednesday that it thinks it will have an ultra-compact fusion reactor operating in ten years" http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/15/3580379/fusion-power-lockheed-martin-cfr/ (even if Lockheed is pumping for stock value, theres too many heads in that game to ignore it completely, the same for solar efficiency, improved fuel cells, LFTRs, and various other projects). ** Not accounting for various technopunk/collapse hypotheticals (which are also fun). The individual ability to travel beyond your home and work bubble has changed all of human culture. Raging about that ability just because the combustion engines we all grew up with are loving terrible is short-sighted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
They'll also be safer when they become self-driving. But the fact that they take up much more space is kind of inherent to the form.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Cicero posted:They'll also be safer when they become self-driving. But the fact that they take up much more space is kind of inherent to the form. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrxyr1CjiSM I guess they can already turn off your car when they want to though. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-03-30-repo-device-car-loans_N.htm
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
"The individual ability to travel beyond your home and work bubble" is absolutely important and great, but isn't unique to the personal car. Many modern modes of transportation can accomplish that just as well and more efficiently, except in a rural environment. Requiring everyone to purchase an expensive 1.5-ton machine, operate one of those per 1-4 travelers, and keep it stored in an easily-accessible location wherever they go, now THAT'S the definitive feature of the car.
Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Ultimately the issue is not that cars are efficient or not, they aren't or the goal should be to reduce their use significantly. It is ultimately about timing and eliminating car use as time goes on when it makes sense. I see the problem with demand based parking is putting the car before the horse especially in cities/neighborhoods where there is only spotty local bus service. Making car use harder isn't going to actually solve the problem of transportation because it is an actual investment issue we have been neglectful about and it is going to take a while to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Reducing car use for its own sake is good. Cars are horribly inefficient in every sense: use of fuel, greenhouse gas, and required infrastructure. I'm not saying we need to eliminate cars entirely, but a lot of people seem to be operating with the premise that cars are not inherently bad, which just isn't true. Trust me, if I didn't have to drive to work, I wouldn't. Unfortunately, public transportation at where I live and where I work is not the most efficient. so unless I want to add 3 hours a day to my commute, I'll have to drive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Note that when I refer to "infrastructure," I don't just mean roads; as was mentioned earlier, parking takes up a huge amount of space, which is frequently empty and unused for a majority of the time. If we had less space taken up by parking, we'd have more space for housing, which would, in turn, make rents cheaper and places easier to find closer to downtown, in addition to increasing density which would make public transit easier and better. Cars are awful. seiferguy posted:Trust me, if I didn't have to drive to work, I wouldn't. Unfortunately, public transportation at where I live and where I work is not the most efficient. so unless I want to add 3 hours a day to my commute, I'll have to drive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Note that when I refer to "infrastructure," I don't just mean roads; as was mentioned earlier, parking takes up a huge amount of space, which is frequently empty and unused for a majority of the time. If we had less space taken up by parking, we'd have more space for housing, which would, in turn, make rents cheaper and places easier to find closer to downtown, in addition to increasing density which would make public transit easier and better. Your underlined clause is not actually caused by your supposition. Housing density is not a result of parking costs, strangely enough. Building more rooms for people to live in, however, is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I understand that, but if you were charged more for parking, you'd probably be willing to pay more for rent in order to live closer so you didn't have to drive, which would reduce the number of people looking to live out in the burbs, or at least, as above, increase the density of housing closer to the city, and make it easier to create bus routes for people. The problem with that thinking is that housing isn't going to be affordable, so the way it works out is people with wealth will have a choice of where to give and people without it will have to make do with low rent suburbs with poor public transportation or pay a bunch for parking. It goes back to the entire issue of trying to force urbanization by refusing to actually allow the mass government intervention it would take to do it probably. It has been done in other places but usually it required the government to be very hands on (like the Soviets).
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Note that when I refer to "infrastructure," I don't just mean roads; as was mentioned earlier, parking takes up a huge amount of space, which is frequently empty and unused for a majority of the time. If we had less space taken up by parking, we'd have more space for housing, which would, in turn, make rents cheaper and places easier to find closer to downtown, in addition to increasing density which would make public transit easier and better. You could probably put in a parking garage which would serve 5 times as many people as the potential apartment it would replace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I understand that, but if you were charged more for parking, you'd probably be willing to pay more for rent in order ... to eat less food, have less free time, see less doctors, and hide in your 70 square foot closet when not working since you would be too broke to do anything. :fixing-the-economy: :spoiled-person-with-spare-money: :looking-down-on-poors: You have a political motivation, that you are trying to justify as a "common sense" solution to housing and economic problems. edit: As one easy solution: computer parts posted:You could probably put in a parking garage which would serve 5 times as many people as the potential apartment it would replace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
I live in an area whose downtown has a shortage of parking. Parking garages would own; gently caress lots and street parking. (And more old school brick commercial architecture, too, please  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
FRINGE posted::spoiled-person-with-spare-money: I don't see where the hell you're getting this. His entire argument is trying to prove that fewer drivers makes it easier to create public transportation, which is notably cheaper to use than owning a car, if it's available. He may have failed to prove this to you, but that doesn't suddenly morph his entire philosophy into one with the exact opposite goals. Like I said earlier: I find it hilarious in D&D how often both sides of an argument are "on the side of the poor" and certain that their opponent is supporting the rich/spoiled. Accretionist posted:I live in an area whose downtown has a shortage of parking. Parking garages would own; gently caress lots and street parking. Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Your underlined clause is not actually caused by your supposition. Housing density is not a result of parking costs, strangely enough. Building more rooms for people to live in, however, is. Fewer parking lots = more room to build housing. Like, this isn't a huge logical leap. computer parts posted:You could probably put in a parking garage which would serve 5 times as many people as the potential apartment it would replace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:I don't see where the hell you're getting this. His entire argument is trying to prove that fewer drivers makes it easier to create public transportation, which is notably cheaper to use than owning a car, if it's available. He may have failed to prove this to you, but that doesn't suddenly morph his entire philosophy into one with the exact opposite goals. "Get rid of parking" has nothing to do with "easier to create public transportation". "Charge people to park where they live" has nothing to do with "easier to create public transportation". "Force people to live in closets or quit their jobs" has nothing to do with "easier to create public transportation". Those ideas are motivated with a single actual goal: punish car users. When the door-to-door teleport pods are complete and the roads are empty then you can discuss how they are not needed. When you want to remove roads and parking from people who are using them daily in order to work you are punishing people (in a severe way) to advance your agenda. The goals are not supposed to be aesthetic (i hate cars!) or philosophical (the market should decide who can afford to keep their job, or we force-relocate them!), they should be functional. - less traffic - less pollution - less stress - more free time - more productivity - whatever ... and things like that. Most of the "bike-nazi" goals do not accomplish these things very well. They actually make some of them worse, while making unrelated issues worse as well (get rid of your family if they dont fit in your $1200 rental closet, all power to the developers!). Get the magical transportation tubes working before you try to drive people out of their homes and jobs. I have lived in almost a dozen cities on the west coast, so far this crap never fixes anything. It increases traffic while improving nothing. Go to war against the money flow instead of your fellow citizens, most of whom are barely getting by as it is.  I already have co-workers making a (combined) three hour commute because they cant afford to park near work. That makes an 11 hour work day and its the exact wrong direction for life to be going. People who dont drive end up losing an entire day for the privilege of seeing a doctor or dentist. You might find it hilarious, but my goal is for people to have better lives, not "more philosophically pleasing" ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I am sure you think its hilarious, since you think its great to drive people out of their homes and jobs now (in a terrible economy) in order to have a fantastical dream of a car-less society (for whatever reason). Yeah, those loving liberals in this city, worrying about cars and bikes when they haven't done a thing to help with income inequality. Yeah, not a goddamn thing. 
Ham Equity fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I am sure you think its hilarious, since you think its great to drive people out of their homes and jobs now (in a terrible economy) in order to have a fantastical dream of a car-less society (for whatever reason). Yes, as Ardennes pointed out, they have decades of infrastructure to support that, but luckily infrastructure in the year 2014 isn't permanently unchanging. At one point even the notoriously bikenazi Netherlands was moving in the direction of car domination, before they changed course again in the 70s. We can steadily move towards smarter development for the future. quote:"Get rid of parking" has nothing to do with "easier to create public transportation". quote:When the door-to-door teleport pods are complete and the roads are empty then you can discuss how they are not needed. edit: in case you weren't already aware, building more roads doesn't fix traffic congestion: quote:For interstate highways in metropolitan areas we find that VKT [vehicle kilometers traveled] increases one for one with interstate highways, confirming the “fundamental law of highway congestion” suggested by Anthony Downs (1962; 1992). We also uncover suggestive evidence that this law may extend beyond interstate highways to a broad class of major urban roads, a “fundamental law of road congestion”. These results suggest that increased provision of interstate highways and major urban roads is unlikely to relieve congestion of these roads. - See more at: http://perc.org/articles/study-building-roads-cure-congestion-exercise-futility#sthash.nKxg8W5b.dpuf Cicero fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Please stop assuming people are arguing in bad faith. Regardless of what you think the actual outcome of these policies would be, clearly nobody here actually intends to hurt poor people Thanatosian posted:Yeah, those loving liberals in this city, worrying about cars and bikes when they haven't done a thing to help with income inequality. Yeah, not a goddamn thing. Ask someone making $15/hour to move their family into Capitol Hill or Downtown to take advantage of all that beautiful density! This is already out of date (2013) but points the right direction: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021673014_rentincreasesxml.html quote:That’s why they were so surprised to see what happened last winter with The Lyric, a 234-unit building on Capitol Hill. Within four months of its November opening, the complex near Broadway and East Thomas Street was completely leased out to renters paying a startling average rent of $2,200 a month. *A freind of mine just moved into an apodment on Cap Hill, they are no longer "around $600", she is paying a little over $1200 for her closet. All of the "plans" the anti-car people are suggesting here are coming from the PoV similar to an Amazon drone, and not a "normal" persons income. "Just move closer" "Just take longer to commute" "Just ride a bike" "Just get a job somewhere else"
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Fewer parking lots = more room to build housing. Like, this isn't a huge logical leap. Actually logically, this has nothing to do with building said housing. In fact, it is the exact opposite causation: while more housing would physically mean less room for parking, less parking in no way actually causes there to be more housing. Even supposing that the SEDU and other regulations reduced the number of parking spaces required, you would have to assume some sort of "invisible hand" would make more housing without the parking associated with it. And even so, the entire reason that the SEDU regulations went into effect was that while said parking was not constructed, the people living in said buildings still owned, parked, and drove cars! The entire argument is based on an irrational assumption, seeking to come to a self-sufficient solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Not to derail the argument over cars and parking and housing in your megalopoli, but I just thought I'd mention that I've been doing a little reading, and it looks like Oregon Measure 90 needs to die. Apparently it's a retread of Measure 65 from 2008, and while touted as "opening the primaries" it also limits the general election to only two candidates. Basically, it looks like a way for the major parties and big money to further simplify and control the general elections more than it does anything else. Okay, you can go back to debating the merits of various urban dystopias now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Not to derail the argument over cars and parking and housing in your megalopoli, but I just thought I'd mention that I've been doing a little reading, and it looks like Oregon Measure 90 needs to die. Apparently it's a retread of Measure 65 from 2008, and while touted as "opening the primaries" it also limits the general election to only two candidates. Basically, it looks like a way for the major parties and big money to further simplify and control the general elections more than it does anything else. Yeah it's a terrible idea and I'm surprised it hasn't been talked about more. I guess weed stole the show.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Is it any different than the primary system here in WA?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Not to derail the argument over cars and parking and housing in your megalopoli, but I just thought I'd mention that I've been doing a little reading, and it looks like Oregon Measure 90 needs to die. Apparently it's a retread of Measure 65 from 2008, and while touted as "opening the primaries" it also limits the general election to only two candidates. Basically, it looks like a way for the major parties and big money to further simplify and control the general elections more than it does anything else. Both the Republican and Democratic state parties have come out against it. The only people I've seen who are for it are people from WFP who are deluded enough to think that it would increase turnout in primary elections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's a good thing nobody has suggested getting rid of all cars overnight then! A closer analogy would be if someone suggested slowly reducing the Senate's power and influence while simultaneously fixing the House. You should come up with analogy that isn't terrible politics. The Senate is fine as is. Every state gets two senators, any new states get two senators. It ensures that no matter how barren a wasteland you live in (looking at you Wyoming) you get the same vote as California/New York. It's the sober adult part of Congress. We should just massively expand the House, call it a day. Go back to the original proportions of Representatives. I mean really it's the perfect analogy for your car plan, but I'm assuming you didn't mean it that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
How should I vote on the non-binding and completely misleading and meaningless advisory votes in WA?  There's no spot for a write-in "gently caress Tim Eyman" vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:How should I vote on the non-binding and completely misleading and meaningless advisory votes in WA? "Yes" is the closest thing to "gently caress Tim Eyman."
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:You should come up with analogy that isn't terrible politics. The Senate is fine as is. Every state gets two senators, any new states get two senators. It ensures that no matter how barren a wasteland you live in (looking at you Wyoming) you get the same vote as California/New York. It's the sober adult part of Congress. We should just massively expand the House, call it a day. Go back to the original proportions of Representatives. I mean really it's the perfect analogy for your car plan, but I'm assuming you didn't mean it that way. These are terrible ideas fyi. A democracy should not be handing out votes based on land ownership. Where you live has nothing to do with how much representation one should get, anymore than what skin color you have or what your gender is. The fact that the 580,000 citizens of Wyoming get treated as being equivalent to the 38,300,000 citizens of California (66 times greater) is a patent failure in democratic government - not something to be proud of as "sober and adult". Here in Oregon it'd be the equivalent of treating the people who live in Lake County (Lakeview) as equivalent to the people who live in Multnomah County (Portland); in Washington it'd be the equivalent of treating the people who live in King County (Seattle) as being equivalent to the people who live in Jefferson County (Port Townsend). There's nothing democratic about it, as it fundamentally compromises the voting rights of the vast majority of people in the interests of a handful of elites. The completely unrepresentative Senate leads to all sorts of issues with corruption and pork-barrel funding, and disenfranchises Americans who don't get special representation. It's one of the last bastions of preferential political treatment for conservative whites, and it should be done away with as speedily as its cousin the Three-Fifths Compromise. The system, as it exists, is an affront to democracy. Even the European Union weights its council votes by population, and that involves entirely separate nations. The US Senate should be fundamentally reformed in the interest of the basic principles of egalitarian self-governance. CaptainSarcastic posted:Not to derail the argument over cars and parking and housing in your megalopoli, but I just thought I'd mention that I've been doing a little reading, and it looks like Oregon Measure 90 needs to die. Apparently it's a retread of Measure 65 from 2008, and while touted as "opening the primaries" it also limits the general election to only two candidates. Basically, it looks like a way for the major parties and big money to further simplify and control the general elections more than it does anything else. Agreed on all points. Measure 90 is awful and effectively does away with primaries entirely and replaces them with a single two-tiered election. It does worse than nothing for third parties, and the only reason conservatives are backing it is because it kills voter participation. I think it's amazing that such a fundamental change in how we vote isn't getting more discussion in our news media. Here in Corvallis we've talked way more about implementing parking zones than we have about totally altering how we vote. I think that people just don't know what to make of it, and are being intentionally confused by the misappropriation of the term "open primary". Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Good thing we're not a democracy then. We have a bicameral Congress for a reason. It's so Idaho as a chunk of land has a say in what its future is. In your version it wouldn't. As an Idahoan, I'm pretty sure I know less about Yosemite than I do about the Clearwater. Likewise for my senators.
Peztopiary fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Good thing we're not a democracy then. We have a bicameral Congress for a reason. It's so Idaho as a chunk of land has a say in what its future is. In your version it wouldn't. As an Idahoan, I'm pretty sure I know less about Yosemite than I do about the Clearwater. Likewise for my senators. We're a democratic republic, but that has nothing to do with handing out votes to "chunks of land". The "republic" element means that we elect leaders rather than having every law and ordinance be subject to public vote (i.e. an initiative). Idahoans should have a say in what their future is, and that say should be just the same as everyone else and should be vested in democratic principles. You may know less about Yosemite than you do about Clearwater, but understand that in the California/Wyoming equivalency it'd be like giving the Ranger staff at the Yosemite Main Visitor Center (~130 people) a vote equal to that of your entire county of Clearwater (8,500 people). It'd also mean that people who wanted to influence a vote would only have to focus on a handful of citizens, allowing them to cheaply buy an election while ignoring the vast majority of people. Giving 130 people special representation wouldn't be fair to you, nor the other 1.6 million citizens of Idaho, and it would fundamentally betray the democratic principles that the country is founded on. It's one thing to give the Rangers their due representation in government - it's another thing entirely to set them up as a fiefdom unto themselves, and what's more to limit the ability of anyone else (like the Rangers in the Yosemite Museum, or the Wilderness Center, or the Nature Center, or you know, non-Rangers) in emulating them. Also, I know that your concepts about rationalizing the land-based Senate probably come from primary education, because I remember getting the same facile explanations about how "the US is not a democracy" and "a balance between small states and big states" and "equality in the bicameral legislature". But I encourage you to think critically about them, because those ideas are really limited and are intended to butter over the inherent problems of our system. It doesn't make sense and it isn't fair or just. And what's more, these problems are relatively recent. When the country was first created we widely used the territorial system to account for areas without significant populations. As such, the widest population disparity between states for the first couple hundred years was typically a factor of 10. Population shifts from immigration, industrialisation, and urbanization changed all that. Our current widest disparity is 66, and that's mirrored over and over with a handful of states holding the great majority of the population. We've also slowed to a stop our adoption of new states, or breaking apart existing states, which was another mechanic for ensuring more equal representation in the Senate. Even the acceptance of Puerto Rico as a state, which would be the 29th largest state by population and larger than both Delaware and Rhode Island by geographic size, continues to be an extremely grudging process (which is abhorrent, since we allow 3.6 million Americans to be disenfranchised essentially because they'd vote Democratic). The idea of splitting up larger states like California, even in a purely legalistic fashion, is fiercely opposed. This has catalysed the existing problems of an inherently undemocratic system, which itself is a direct holdover from the landed gentry and pocket boroughs of the British House of Lords during the latter monarchy. Fun Fact: If we were to readopt the minimum population threshold for states, allowing for population inflation, we'd turn 10 states back into territories. Idaho would barely make the cut-off and become the smallest populated state. Conversely, Metropolitan Los Angeles alone could become at least 9 states, never mind the rest of California. Kaal fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
The Founding Fathers were not super big fans of democracy though. 3/5ths and only white male land owners voting etc. Not that I think either of those things is anything less than terrible. The democratic principles upon which this country was founded are pretty terrible. It's largely been through the courts and the legislatures that we've expanded the franchise. Why should Idaho give up its Constitutional advantages to advance some notion of fairness though? What's in it for them? I actually think the Senate is valuable as a deliberative body, or at least was until recently. Expand the House and keep the Senate. Seems easier than trying to get rid of the Senate. I understand your argument about having to bribe fewer people, but I think that's a flaw with the people being elected and not the system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Expand the House and keep the Senate. Peztopiary posted:I understand your argument about having to bribe fewer people Peztopiary posted:Why should Idaho give up its Constitutional advantages to advance some notion of fairness though? "I mean sure, we could let women vote, but wouldnt that lessen my advantage as a man? Same thing with the coloreds. Why dilute my bloated power for 'fairness'?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Yes Idaho is clearly oppressing the Californians. That's why they keep moving up here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Yes Idaho is clearly oppressing the Californians. That's why they keep moving up here. Hey, your vote counts more if you move to Idaho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Inadequate compensation for having to live in Idaho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:Hey, your vote counts more if you move to Idaho. Specifically 24 times more. Want to meet the Idaho Senate candidate? Come right up and chat with him for five minutes. In California you'd get only 12.5 seconds. Seems fair. Kaal fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Yes Idaho is clearly oppressing the Californians. That's why they keep moving up here. I know this isn't really fair, but I tend to have a hard time remembering that Idaho is generally thought of as being in the Pacific Northwest. As a native Oregonian, I tend to feel a kinship with Washington and Northern California, but not so much Idaho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:I know this isn't really fair, but I tend to have a hard time remembering that Idaho is generally thought of as being in the Pacific Northwest. That's because you lack the blood of Jesus. Error 404 fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Error 404 posted:That's because you lack the blood of Jesus. What happens in the SJLAB thread stays in the SJLAB thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:23
|
|